Jump to content

Talk:Blair Waldorf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBlair Waldorf has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2008Articles for deletionKept
November 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Marcus and Blair?

[edit]

Just cause I'm nice, I'll warn you: Spoilers for "The Ex-Files" in this section.


...

And now that we've taken care of that: Are we putting Marcus and Blair as broken up? Considering that Marcus slept with Catherine and they both went to London, they seem pretty much broken up to me, but they never really talked, so...? Raven23 (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair is the main character

[edit]

Since there still seem to be a few people defying this statement, I thought I'd essentially reiterate what's been said on the Gossip Girl talk page.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In this interview, which is included as a source in the article, Cecily von Ziegesar verifies that Blair is her main character.

  • Not liking it is not a valid reason for defying it in this encyclopedia.
  • Applying your own spin or speculation to it (such as calling the main character "one of the main characters") is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

So! ...I hope that resolves things :) --James26 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Image

[edit]

Add the [[File:BDorf2.jpg]] image instead of the current image that has no visibility on her face. --Sexxxy-Silver Cullen (90210) (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can certainly see her face just fine in the current one. "No visibility" is inaccurate. In any case, I'd prefer the current image, or another, to the proposed replacement, which is quite dated and overused. They have a pretty good image over at Wikia, though I'm not sure of the source. -- James26 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I Got a NEw Image. I worked on it and now, here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakingDawn 90210 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a picture of Blair Waldorf on the cover of a book is her profile picture. All the other main characters have pictures from the show as their profile pictures, so why doesn't Blair? I would much rather prefer that the profile picture is one of Leighton Meester. (Sorry if this sounded rude, that wasn't my intention) :) 65.189.2.184 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)XOXO, Gossip Girl :)[reply]

I agree. Why isn't Leighton the profile picture? She does play Blair Waldorf.

Overly Long Entry

[edit]

No, stop, this is ridiculous. The entry for Leopold Bloom, the protagonist from Joyce's Ulysses, is about a third the length of this. And that's widely considered the greatest novel of the twentieth century...There's utterly no justification for an entry on a fictional soap television/paperback character to be this long. Did any of you editors even notice this article was nominated for deletion in August 2008? And yet you continued to expand it. I'd really suggest a moratorium on expanding this article. --BasilSeal (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

4.249.84.191 How dare you remove my post under the pretext that its header was 'uncivil.' There was a more appropriate method of revising my comment - simply editing the header. To remove it, and without signing-in, was in such poor taste, revealing merely that your edit was based on personal objections rather than content. That's a far greater violation of Wikipedia rules than an 'uncivil header.' BasilSeal (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

This article could use some improvements, such as the lead section. A lead section shouldn't contain references, because a lead section shouldn't tell you anything that isn't verified in the body of the article. Various odd placements of intricate detail, "She started a brief fling with her Yale alumni interviewer, only to end it when she finds out that he was married and had a daughter also studying at Constance." That shouldn't be in a section titled "Summary". The article focuses too much on the TV series. This article is about the character, not just the TV character. I find it funny that the entire novel series gets one, very small section and a reception section (accompanied by a photo of Ms. Leighton Meester) and the TV series gets three sections (which have excessive amounts of intricate detail), a casting section and a reception section. Also, there are no external links. $©@®©Ξ 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree that improvements can be made in the areas you mentioned. Are you sure that references shouldn't ever be a lead section? Just curious, because I see them over in featured articles like Superman and Mariah Carey.
My focus has primarily been on the "Reception" section, the lead, and the two new sections that were added not long ago ("Creation" and "Casting"). I don't really know much about the character's story lines, so I haven't really focused on the other sections. With regard to expanding the novel series material, sources would need to be provided. I imagine that a reader of the books might be able to assist in that area, particularly when it comes to citing page numbers, or linking to articles which verify things. -- James26 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, lead section references should only be provided for things that need verifying and may be hard to find in the article, anything thing that falls into BLP, or any major point for the article. It's not so much that but adding paragraphs (referenced or not) to the lead that can't seem to fit in the article shouldn't be happening. And tons of intricate detail in the season sections (especially 2) that could easily be removed. $©@®©Ξ 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I've tried to limit the lead references to things related to BLP. What lead paragraphs are you referring to with regard to the rest of the article? As for the intricate detail regarding the show, I've made efforts to remove some of that when I've seen it added (such as yesterday), but I think that I'll leave some of that task to others. -- James26 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About her gaining notability in regards to her wardrobe. It's very randomly placed, and interrupts the two paragraphs describing her $©@®©Ξ 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to edit war. I think it's notable enough to be in the lead (it doesn't happen with every television character, which makes her notable). Can you think of another way to integrate it there? -- James26 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. I don't think it currently interrupts the two paragraphs describing her, because I've begun by mentioning the character's notability -- so the second paragraph is meant as a continuation. -- James26 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...the most critically acclaimed character of both Gossip Girl incarnations." "A privileged young woman born to..." is great, to put something in between those looks very random. Her lead section should tell about her, and some reception. This doesn't look right $©@®©Ξ 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried combining the two. My stance is that "reception" includes both the critical acclaim for the way she's written, and the media attention for the way they dress her. They're two different kinds of accolades, but both notable in regard to this character, which is why I figured they should each be mentioned in the lead. -- James26 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I like it, now we need an expert to do the novel sections :) $©@®©Ξ 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Blair is seen attending the Sacrament of Confession at a Roman Catholic Church, but admits to not being Catholic. Her mother marries Cyrus Rose, who is a devout Jew.. does Blair become Jewish? I know she says "signs are for the religious and superstitious" in the last season, which implies she is not religious, but would she be considered "Jewish"? Just wondering. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book she is protestant, but after her mother's conversion to Judaism, calls herself Jewish sometimes. Should she be under the category "Fictional Jews"? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

[edit]

I keep wondering why Wikipedia does not consider this as a good article. Moderate greed (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well, speaking as someone who's contributed -- thanks. :) Managed to help get Naomi Clark to Good Article status, but I don't know if Blair Waldorf is ready just yet. The "Novel series" section is still lacking when it comes to sources, and there may be some other issues as well. With a bit more work, it may be GA level, though I, personally, don't have much time to do this anymore. Of course, you can certainly nominate the article for GA status if you'd like. Thanks for the comment. -- James26 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Blair Waldorf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AstroCog's GA review

[edit]

I'll be reviewing this article, using the GA criteria, listed below. General responses, questions and comments to me can be made in this section. Responses to specific points in the review should be made in the review section below. Please sign all comments. AstroCog (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria section

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The text of the article is pretty good, but I would like to see a re-structuring of the article, to reflect good practice of character articles. See the FA for Martin Keamy as an example. As it reads, the article would satisfy fans of the show, but still leaves a general and unfamiliar reader wanting more, such as background of the story/setting. I suggest beginning with a "Background" section, which briefly describes the setting and characters. Something like "Gossip Girl is a franchise of stories that have appeared in print and as a television series. It is set in the Upper West Side of Manhattan and features characters that..." - something like that. The article itself has some pretty good background about all of this, but it's scattered around in the various sections.
    Additionally, I've been making some minor tweaks to sentences and grammar. I don't want to continue doing that, so I suggest getting a copy editor to run over the article. Be sure that language, especially tense, is consistent throughout article. The novels section doesn't need separate subsections for romance, ambition, etc. Just combine it all into a single set of paragraphs.
    So, get a copy edit before I check off 1a. Re-structure for 1b. AstroCog (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added information about the setting to the opening paragraph. I think the rest of that section adequately introduces the character. Combined the sub-sections as well. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not satisfied with the background. Some was added to the novels section, but that comes later in the article. I'm talking about a general background about this series, to provide context for the character, not just an introduction to her. See Restless (Buffy) for an example of a nice background section for an article about an element in a series. This character doesn't need a background section that is as lengthy, but it would benefit from something more at the beginning.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've taken some content from the opening paragraph, and moved it up to the first possible section. Hope that helps. This isn't really a "scenario"-driven story in the same manner as something like Buffy, so background info isn't going to be quite as complex. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I was unfamiliar with this process before. I'm wary of doing this, given how long it took to get a review -- but I do want things to be processed fairly, so I did it anyway. As you've read the entire article, do you really feel that grammatical issues are prevalent enough to warrant this? Anyway, it's been submitted for copyediting. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about "controversy, and other matters" still needs to be rephrased, IMO. In the lead, be specific: "controversy about domestic violence" for example. "Other matters" is too vague. Be specific about what those other matters are.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've altered that. Chose "physical abuse" over "domestic violence," as I don't believe the latter applied to the scene. -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Removed the dead links, and threw in some replacements. As it stands, each of the links should verify the claims (unless I missed any). -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some sketchy links - just click on the "external links" tool in the above right to see the link with tagged issues. A couple have no server response.AstroCog (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which two, and clarify what you mean by "sketchy"? The links I'm clicking on are leading me to the destination. How does this fail to make the article "factually accurate and verifiable"? -- James26 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #2 cites a webpage which is not responsive. If something is important enough to be referenced in the article, then that reference should be verifiable - in the case of a website, if you click on it, it should go to a readable page. This is why I suggested using the Way Back Machine from [archive.org]. Many webpages will have been archived there, and you can get a permanent link to the archived page, which solves the problem of using the original URL in the citation, which can succumb to link rot.AstroCog (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yes, I know what verifiability means. In any case, I've re-checked the links, and replaced or removed the ones that weren't working. The Way Back machine apparently didn't have them, so I used caches. I've clicked on the remaining highlighted links, and they still appear to verify the claims within the article. Please let me know if there are any that don't. -- James26 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make sure that all statements about characterization are referenced, either from an independent source, or from an interview or statement from the show's writers/producers. It's ok to use the show or novels themselves to reference specific character actions/events/developments. I don't see any obvious issues with this, but the article's main contributers will know best. AstroCog (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The Manga series seems to stick out has not having enough to justify a separate major section. Perhaps a major section can be created called "Character in print", with subsections for the novels and the manga. I just think the Manga stuff doesn't warrant its own major section. AstroCog (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No major issues with neutrality that I can detect. AstroCog (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems relatively stable, and managed by a curating editor. AstroCog (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Some non-free images and one released image. All with rationales. Captions are OK - manga image could use some better, like "Blair as seen in the Manga series". However, all images need alt text. AstroCog (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text. -- James26 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall: This is quite a nice article, and just needs some additional work to bring it up to GA level. I'm putting it on hold until these improvements are made.
Thanks go to Grapple X who I asked to copy edit the article. Everything looks good now. Passing the article. AstroCog (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pass/Fail:
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blair Waldorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an image of Blair with her full face?

[edit]

Right now the image is kinda shitty, there’s only half of her face that is visible. Vozixity (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blair_Waldorf&oldid=1257865562"